Debates of June 23rd, 2011

Restoring Mail Delivery for Canadians Act

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, what was the question?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to raise one point. My colleague outlined the origins of the impasse here as being the ultimate goal of the government to privatize Canada Post as part of a neo-Conservative agenda that would include a multitude of changes; to recreate Canada in the image of George Bush's United States or Johnny Howard's Australia.

Are we seeing the first glimpse, the first insight, the first shot across the bow of the attack of the neo-Conservatives to throw some red meat to their base and finally do the things they were put here to do, which is to devastate the country as we know it, that our fathers built in the post—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, this desire for privatization has been expressed for years in the neo-conservative discourse in Ottawa and in Quebec City. That is their vision of the market. The NDP wants to keep public services universal and free for the population, so that the wealth is shared and we live in a society of social justice. The government should not forget that. In four years, we will still be here to remind the government that social justice will climb its way to power in Canada.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say something about the Fête nationale. Since 1964, no government in this House found a way to prevent the adjournment of proceedings for June 24, Saint-Jean Baptiste Day, which is Quebeckers’ national holiday

To hear the Prime Minister say yesterday that we simply had to vote for the bill if we wanted to go home to celebrate is one of the worst things that I can imagine hearing in this House. This image will stay with me for a long time, and I will make sure that my fellow citizens also remember it in four years’ time.

On the other hand, it was an honour to hear the Leader of the Opposition give such an inspiring speech here yesterday. He gave a rousing retrospective of everything the labour movement has done to achieve a quality of life that is beyond comparison with that of our ancestors. The members opposite need to remember this.

I would like to set the record straight on a a few points. Canada Post is a crown corporation that has posted a profit of $281 million. Just to be clear, this is a profitable crown corporation that has locked out its employees. The last time I closed an small business it was because it was not profitable. When a business is profitable, usually things can be worked out and an agreement can be reached. I have to wonder about the skill of our friends opposite as managers.

Despite what a number of our colleagues opposite have stated, the union’s position is not the result of vicious organizers who are pressuring others. I met with the group of letter carriers in Montmagny, along with their organizer. When I asked who among them was their spokesperson, the organizer did not speak up; the others pointed him out. A woman said they had chosen him because he speaks well. He humbly asked to meet with me. I had just met a monster, a monster of kindness. He was definitely not pressuring these workers.

The 55,000 workers who will be affected by this bill are not temperamental. They are above all parents, citizens and consumers. These 55,000 workers are not being unreasonable.

Consider the fact that they are also consumers. Consider the impact of this decision concerning a crown corporation that is making a profit. Wages will be cut by $800 per year or more for 55,000 consumers. How will this decision help what the members opposite call the economic recovery that they have been talking about since the beginning of this Parliament? As far as the economic recovery goes, if a crown corporation is profitable, it should share its good fortune with its workers in order to really get the economic recovery going.

These workers are also citizens. I am not so sure that our friends opposite remember that. One of our colleagues made the argument that the rotating strikes are affecting public health and safety. Is this some kind of cynicism or desensitization? We are talking about 55,000 workers who will be losing insurance coverage for their prescriptions. They are citizens who also deserve assurances for their health and their future.

They are also parents. Think about the young parents especially who are just starting out with the crown corporation and who are told from the outset that they will have to make do with 18% less, a less generous wage package and more difficult working conditions and that they will have to work longer. These decisions are leaving the parents tired, worn out. That is the impact when a group of workers is seen as simply being temperamental.

I come from the regions. I hope that the broader objective is not to privatize postal services. In the regions, people already have to make do with a small postal outlet very far from home. If the goal is to set up a big postal outlet as you enter Montmagny for 14,000 residents, I hope it does not come to that. If postal services are privatized, it will lead to scenarios just as ridiculous as that. So please let us back off on that.

Contempt and provocation are a way of using events that our friends opposite resort to regularly. Unfortunately, they are practising this kind of politics at the expense of our national holiday.

Canadians and Quebeckers are smart enough to see the strings the government is pulling. They know it is a lockout. They know that this House could have adjourned so we could go home to our ridings for the national holiday. In four years, people will remember. If the government respects people, aboriginal people, seniors and those who need medicines, they should unlock the lockout.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his party have spoken often about the issue of the pension for Canada Post workers. I have in my hands the equity holdings, greater than $25 million, for that very same pension fund. It includes, in order of largest investment, Toronto Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Bank of Nova Scotia, Suncor Energy, Canadian Natural Resources, Potash Corp., Canadian National Railway, Talisman Energy, Research in Motion, Barrick Gold, Manulife Financial, and I could go on.

The Leader of the Opposition has called for an increase in taxes on these very same enterprises from 15% to 19.5%. That means that the after-tax profits, which come from these companies and go directly into the pension fund of the workers the member purports to defend, would be reduced. In other words, the tax increase on enterprises that is proposed by the NDP is actually a tax on the Canada Post workers' pension fund.

I am wondering if the hon. member would explain to the workers of CUPW why he wants to increase taxes on their already stretched pension fund.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Let me begin by correcting something my colleague opposite said. The solution we put forward was to ensure that big companies duly pay their taxes, which are lower than what companies pay in the United States, in order to be competitive, and to make huge investments in SMEs. That is what was suggested and what is needed to create as many jobs as possible in Canada.

To be fair, I suggest that the government move to impose an 18% salary cut for all new Conservative members for the next eight years.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to clarify something for the hon. member for Oshawa, who does not seem to understand the situation. He put both parties on the same footing. He said that both parties are guilty, which is why the government needed to take action. I would remind our colleague that the union fully intended to keep the postal services as flexible as possible. Therefore, it chose rotating strikes as low-pressure tactics, so that seniors, aboriginal people and Canadians in remote areas could keep receiving mail. Management responded with a lockout, which put a stop to mail delivery. The two parties are not on the same footing and they are not equally guilty, which is why we are demanding an end to the lookout.

My question about orphan clauses is for my colleague and riding neighbour. These clauses are detrimental, since workers doing the same work as their colleagues will be paid less. Could the member comment on that?

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

A friend of mine, who worked in a different crown corporation, could not become a permanent employee because of such an “orphan clause”. He had been head researcher in his division for eight years, but he was still waiting to become a permanent employee. That is how ludicrous the situation was. In the end, the workers went on strike and the issue was settled. These orphan clauses lead to absurd situations, like wage reductions for new employees. How do you explain that, for 20 years, a worker hired three years before me will get paid more than me for doing the same job? That would be a two-tier system, as my colleague pointed out. Such a ridiculous situation should never occur. A responsible government should always try to avoid this kind of thing.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my best wishes to all Quebeckers on the national holiday. It warms my heart to learn that all francophones, everywhere in Canada, are also celebrating this national holiday. Let us continue the struggle. We will succeed.

I would also like to say to all my colleagues that I am extremely proud of all the speeches they have made up to now. They are speaking from their hearts. They are speaking from their experience, unlike this government, which seems to speak like a machine, an answering machine, constantly repeating the same message. I am concerned, since I myself have experienced special legislation in Quebec that had a horrible effect, not just on me but on a lot of people in Quebec.

I am going to talk about the history of Quebec, particularly because today is the national holiday. Let us recall the very early days of Quebec. The people who brought prosperity to Quebec and to Canada are the workers. They are the people who cleared the land with their hands. They are the people who built the roads. They are the people who set up local businesses. And later in our history, they are the people who came together to create Hydro-Québec so it became a people’s project. They are the volunteers who continue to work with and help people still today.

All these workers sacrificed their time and their energy. This is the people as a whole, let us not forget. This is a shared history, and the connection with the postal service is very important in that history. It is thanks to the postal service, thanks to that connection, that people were able to communicate. And still today, it is the most reliable service there is, and all Canadians know it. Everyone uses computers, but we still have the postal service. It provides us with unbelievable services.

Everyone in my riding is affected by the postal strike. Everyone realizes that the strike has to end, but there is a way to do it, and this government is not doing it the right way. This is absolutely unacceptable.

We are heading toward an historic event. We are a part of history, of a new millennium. Where is this government’s new vision? Where is its ability to go beyond the old methods?

In my own work experience, I have worked in unionized workplaces since I was 14 years old, in large and small businesses. I have even been the boss. I have also bargained positions. I have handled all aspects of bargaining. There is a common thread that connects all private and public enterprises, and that is that the proceeds are shared, the success is shared. Canada Post has absolutely no excuse. The corporation had revenue of over $281 million and it is continuing to prosper, but it is not sharing those proceeds at all. Canada Post absolutely did not want to bargain with the workers, who acted in complete good faith. They were even prepared to go back on the same terms, terms that provided for survival, for continuity.

This government’s pretext for the lockout is that the workers were acting in bad faith and are causing the corporation to lose money, when it just keeps making more.

Let us come back to history now, since it seems that this government always operates in the past. All governments that have acted like this, that have created a false situation, like the lockout, and that have then come forward with a special bill, have engaged in dictatorship. That is what I call it, and I will say it today.

Yes, that is where we are heading. It is a right-wing position that runs counter to all the rights of working people, without exception.

By the government’s definition, an essential service is one that is profitable. That is a very broad meaning, and if I look at all the workers there are, all occupations are profitable.

This government claims to be creating jobs. I hope that is true, but it remains to be seen. When workers use their right of expression, they are literally gagged, because it costs money. If I understand the government’s reasoning, no matter who the workers are, if it costs the employer money to settle an internal dispute, the workers will be gagged. That is the message being sent now, with this special bill. We have a problem.

There are all kinds of workers at present: agronomists, nurses, office clerks, restaurant owners, customs officers, security guards, painters, journalists, bakers, dentists, consultants, accountants, movers, electricians, mechanics, cabinetmakers, telemarketers, translators, sociologists, airline pilots, musicians, engineers, peace officers, bailiffs, guides, convenience store clerks, servers, school principals, and so on. What is their agenda? What influence will they have on the multinationals? What message are they sending? What influence will they have on the provincial labour codes?

If people cost even the slightest bit of money, they have the perfect excuse. Strip people of their right of expression, lock them out, fabricate a scenario and decide to bring in a special bill. Congratulations. We are truly heading in the right direction.

Employment contracts continue to decline. If I understand this reasoning properly, to be profitable, people have to work 60 hours a week and draw a pension at the age of 105. We are heading in an excellent direction.

Myself, I do not believe in any way in a society where the economy controls the people. The opposite is true: the economy serves the people. It is not the 2% who should be in control, it is the 98% of people who live ordinary lives, who want to see solutions with a vision.

I invite the government opposite to sit down with us. Instead of making decisions on its own, with a narrow vision, I invite it to take the time to sit down with us to see the broader picture, one that is widely representative of what people want.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the NDP continue to ignore the source of this conflict in terms of work stoppages. The initial problem was rotating strikes.

I have an email here. I know the NDP members do not like to hear from their constituents, but maybe they will listen to one of mine. I received this email on June 3. This person starts off by telling me that he did not vote Conservative but voted NDP. He goes on to state: “This greediness for more money and job security has to stop. No agency or organization in this day and age has job security and better pensions, while many organizations are cutting back on their pensions and laying off staff because they cannot make ends meet.”

My question is very simple. Small businesses have been threatened by this work stoppage. Their volume of business has been reduced, which has resulted in layoffs or, even worse, business closures. Considering the number of small businesses affected, when will that party start standing up for average Canadian workers?

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The solution is very simple: for the postal service to get back up and running again, the lockout has to end. The union agrees to return to work on the same terms. There will be no strike; the employees will go back. They have to end the lockout.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. He has spoken at length about this lockout by Canada Post and the heavy-handed action of the government in reaction to the lockout. It is very simple to end the lockout by simply unlocking Canada Post and allowing the workers to go back to work, as they have offered to do.

In my city of Toronto, the government put locks on almost the entire city and instigated a massive violation of civil liberties during the G20. Many of our local businesses are still waiting to be compensated for that particular lockout and loss of business to our community.

Does the hon. member see a parallel between the lockout of Canada Post and the denial of postal services to Canadians and the lockdown of the city of Toronto in the G20 negotiations, with its denial of civil liberties and denial of business opportunities for Toronto businesses?

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question.

This is in fact a pattern on the part of the government. I think it feels a bit threatened. When something threatens people's very existence, the government takes a hard line, when it could just take the time to meet with people, as it has the gall to say it does, and understand the situation. I imagine that communication is not its strong point.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you will forgive me if I feel like I am on the floor of the convention in Vancouver for the NDP, a socialist party. I keep hearing over and over how profits are bad at Canada Post. I remind the member that the chief shareholder is in fact Canadian taxpayers, at the end of the day, as funds get reinvested in, for example, roads, public infrastructure, health care, and education.

Apart from that, I wonder if the member does not feel confident that the union can win final offer selection arbitration. I do not know if the member has read the bill, all seven pages of it, but the workers will be going back under the recently expired agreement. All settled matters will continue to be settled. They will not be reopened or up for grabs again.

There is a guiding principle about an improved pension solvency trajectory. That is a good thing. That has to improve, not get worse. There are guaranteed pay raises for four years. Who else is getting guaranteed pay raises for four years? The final offer selection is for only the outstanding items that have yet to be agreed upon.

Does the member not believe that the union can put together a competitive package that can win final offer selection?

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been amendments proposed. I am happy to hear that this government is open to amendments. I think it is important to be open.

The door is open, and it is now up to the government to act.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate. I have been extremely excited to listen to my colleagues over the last number of hours that I have been here.

Let me take a different tack in this debate and talk about the terminology that we interchange among ourselves. Sometimes we need a hand in understanding what it is. We do not use it in a wilful way. We simply repeat it over and over again. We think we are actually using it in an appropriate way or are helping to clarify.

In her remarks last evening, the Minister continually talked about a strike, when actually that strike ended when the lockout started. I think she came to recognize that.

We on this side recognize that indeed there was a rotational strike. There is no doubt about that. There was a rotational strike. That is a fact. No one denies that. We have to use the proper language and recognize that this has ended and we now have a lockout.

A lockout is a totally different thing altogether in labour relations. It is a different thing altogether. We now have to recognize that it is no longer a rotational strike that went from place to place, some small places and some large, and then moved on. We are in a full-scale lockout. The entire system is shut down.

In the Canadian labour act, only one side can do a lockout. That is the employer. Workers can never lock out themselves. They can withdraw their labour, but they can never actually go and put a padlock on the gate. They cannot do that.

The other piece that has gone back and forth over the morning is this term “union boss”. Let us explore who is a union boss and what a union boss really looks like. The terminology of “union boss” suggests that somehow that person is the boss of the workers represented by this particular individual.

Actually, the pyramid needs to be inverted. It is those workers who hire the union boss. They democratically elect the union boss. Every three or four years, or in some cases five years depending on the organization, the workers can get rid of their so-called union boss if he or she did not do what they asked him or her to do.

The same thing happens to us. Some of us are back from the 40th Parliament to the 41st Parliament and some of us are not. Clearly their bosses, their constituents, said, “Thank you for your time. I no longer wish to have you here. Please move away. I'm choosing someone else.” In the labour movement, that is indeed what we do in many circumstances.

Let me put a face to the union boss. The members who are sitting here today and looking at me are looking at an ex-union boss. I do not have two heads. I did not grow horns. I represented workers who elected me to do a specific task on their behalf, which was to bargain collective agreements, and that is what I did.

When we were finished bargaining collective agreements, I brought it back to them and said, “Here is the best that we have done. We think this is good. Would you like to vote on it? Tell me yes or no.”

Sometimes they said yes and occasionally they said no. What did it mean when they said no? It meant the union boss went back to work. He or she works for the workers. The workers do not work for the union boss.

The terminology we use can sometimes start to impinge upon people's reputations and give a connotation that is not necessarily true. I would ask the members, when we talk about and use interchangeable terms, to actually use the terms in an appropriate way.

There is a boss at Canada Post, and that is the CEO. Workers do not elect the CEO. The CEO comes to them. The workers do not get an opportunity to say, “You have done a rotten job. It is time to move on.” They do not have that democratic right. However, inside their union they have a democratic right to get rid of their “boss” simply through the electoral process.

I would simply say that sometimes we all use improper terminology. I am not suggesting that we all are not guilty of it. From time to time on this side of the House we are guilty of using terminology that maybe we should think about when we are actually doing those sorts of things.

Let us get past the terminology and talk about the fact that these new workers are about to receive less than the present-day workers under this agreement and the offer that comes from management. Who are they? In my community, they are actually not young people. Many of my colleagues here are younger, and have expressed the sense of what it would be like to be young workers who end up making less than those they work beside.

In my community, a lot of these workers are over at John Deere. They are at Atlas. They are workers who are in the midpoint or sometimes late point of their careers who have to find other work because the places they work for have closed.

Those places are gone. John Deere packed up a little over 18 months ago and is gone. Atlas closed down a number of years ago. We have seen the literal gutting of the manufacturing sector in my riding, just as we have seen across this country.

Here is what happens. When people get a job at Canada Post, they do not start as full-time employees. They start as casual employees. They are told to stay home, that they will be called if somebody calls in sick. Stay by the phone, they are told. So there they are, workers hoping to finally get a job at Canada Post, and they stick by their phones in case a fellow worker calls in sick and they are needed for the day. They get a call and are told, “Come on in today.” Then, if they stay there long enough, they might become part-timers.

Meanwhile, they still have all the responsibilities they had before. Young people have responsibilities, but I am talking about folks who look more like me and less like the young folks we know out there, like my children, who are in their mid-twenties. These folks still have mortgages to pay and children to raise, and yet they find that they are still casual employees or maybe, finally, part-timers. Then, when they are about to take that final step and become full-time employees, they are told, under this collective agreement, to just take less. They will work beside others who are doing exactly the same job, but they are told to take less.

So if they are taking less, why would we allow folks to work side by side doing the same thing? Is the corporation saying that it values one employee more than another as far as rewards are concerned? Whether that will be through the pay scale, because the pay scale is going to be reduced for new hires, talking about the sense that somehow--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member for Essex is rising on a point of order.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member keeps referring to a collective agreement with postal workers that includes two-tier wages. Could he table that in the House?

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

That is not really a point of order.

The hon. member for Welland.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I talk about a collective agreement, I am talking about the proposed collective agreement with Canada Post. I thank my colleague for the non-point of order and for at least giving me the opportunity to clarify the terminology we talked about earlier.

The proposal from Canada Post would lessen the amount of money, so the proposal then becomes a proposal for two types of workers, but not workers who are doing different jobs. The letter carrier who gets less money doesn't get to carry less mail. He or she gets to carry the same amount of mail. These people get to do the same amount of work. They have to work the same number of hours. They have to do all of the things that the others do; they just do it for less. It seems to me that there is an injustice in telling folks to do the job for less.

I have heard Canada Post argue that it is not going to be as profitable in the future as it has been in the past. I wish I had that crystal ball. I think all of us wish we had that crystal ball. It would be wonderful for elections; we would know if we were going to win the next one. It would be wonderful for our RRSPs or investments because we would know how much we could make or lose in the future; we would know what to do with our investments. That would be a wonderful crystal ball.

So what did the union say to the company? The union said it had some ideas about how the company might indeed make itself more profitable. The company is not really saying no, but it is not really jumping at the bit to do it.

Here's one thing the union is suggesting. I would like the government side to get this, because that side has portrayed the TD bank and others as being highly profitable enterprises with low taxes. The union is suggesting that Canada Post ought to do what it did before and go back into financial services. It is fully capable of doing that. It can do it, and if it did, it could make money.

In fact, as a youngster growing up in Glasgow in the U.K., I remember buying savings stamps at the post office. If I bought a savings stamp, it would be put in a book that I actually had in my hand. If I went back at the end of the month, I got whatever the interest was for that month, and I received another little stamp, a real stamp, not one of those ink stamps. If I wanted my money back, I would take out the stamps and hand them back to the post office, which gave me money.

That was quite some time ago, of course. We can do things much differently now. With all the wonderful electronics we have, we can do all those wonderful things. We can do interbanking and all the things in that wonderful world.

Here is a golden opportunity for Canada Post, a crown corporation that benefits Canadians when it makes money. Here is a golden opportunity to make money, to return it to Canadians as a dividend and to reward its employees equally and fairly. Yet it is not saying that it wants to rush in to do this. I find it astounding that a business would not want to make money. I find it astounding that my colleagues on the government side are not pushing Canada Post to make more money. The profit motive is not a bad thing. I am willing to say that in the House. One would think that Canada Post would want to do that.

Let me just say that this is an opportunity for the government to say, “Yes, we want Canada Post and the postal workers to get back to work.” It is as simple as ordering the CEO to take the locks off the boxes and saying, “Let the workers go back to work and we will figure out a negotiated settlement, because that is what we have done in the past, and we can do that in the future.”

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to some of the speeches, or maybe I should call them “the pollutants”, from the socialist Marxist party called the NDP--

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think people would agree that was a really low-class statement that is not befitting of the kind of debate we have in the House. If the member wants to engage—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!